Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors

Transcription

1 Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008; Vol. 8, No. 5 Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors An Evidence-Based Analysis October 2008 Medical Advisory Secretariat Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

2 Suggested Citation This report should be cited as follows: Medical Advisory Secretariat. Social isolation in community-dwelling seniors: an evidence-based analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5). Permission Requests All inquiries regarding permission to reproduce any content in the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series should be directed to How to Obtain Issues in the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series All reports in the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series are freely available in PDF format at the following URL: Print copies can be obtained by contacting Conflict of Interest Statement All analyses in the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series are impartial and subject to a systematic evidence-based assessment process. There are no competing interests or conflicts of interest to declare. Peer Review All Medical Advisory Secretariat analyses are subject to external expert peer review. Additionally, the public consultation process is also available to individuals wishing to comment on an analysis prior to finalization. For more information, please visit Contact Information The Medical Advisory Secretariat Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care 20 Dundas Street West, 10th floor Toronto, Ontario CANADA M5G 2N6 MASinfo.moh@ontario.ca Telephone: ISSN (Online) ISBN (PDF) Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 2

3 About the Medical Advisory Secretariat The Medical Advisory Secretariat is part of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The mandate of the Medical Advisory Secretariat is to provide evidence-based policy advice on the coordinated uptake of health services and new health technologies in Ontario to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and to the healthcare system. The aim is to ensure that residents of Ontario have access to the best available new health technologies that will improve patient outcomes. The Medical Advisory Secretariat also provides a secretariat function and evidence-based health technology policy analysis for review by the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee. The Medical Advisory Secretariat conducts systematic reviews of scientific evidence and consultations with experts in the health care services community to produce the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series. About the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series To conduct its comprehensive analyses, the Medical Advisory Secretariat systematically reviews available scientific literature, collaborates with partners across relevant government branches, and consults with clinical and other external experts and manufacturers, and solicits any necessary advice to gather information. The Medical Advisory Secretariat makes every effort to ensure that all relevant research, nationally and internationally, is included in the systematic literature reviews conducted. The information gathered is the foundation of the evidence to determine if a technology is effective and safe for use in a particular clinical population or setting. Information is collected to understand how a new technology fits within current practice and treatment alternatives. Details of the technology s diffusion into current practice and input from practicing medical experts and industry add important information to the review of the provision and delivery of the health technology in Ontario. Information concerning the health benefits; economic and human resources; and ethical, regulatory, social and legal issues relating to the technology assist policy makers to make timely and relevant decisions to optimize patient outcomes. If you are aware of any current additional evidence to inform an existing evidence-based analysis, please contact the Medical Advisory Secretariat: MASinfo.moh@ontario.ca. The public consultation process is also available to individuals wishing to comment on an analysis prior to publication. For more information, please visit Disclaimer This evidence-based analysis was prepared by the Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, for the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee and developed from analysis, interpretation, and comparison of scientific research and/or technology assessments conducted by other organizations. It also incorporates, when available, Ontario data, and information provided by experts and applicants to the Medical Advisory Secretariat to inform the analysis. While every effort has been made to reflect all scientific research available, this document may not fully do so. Additionally, other relevant scientific findings may have been reported since completion of the review. This evidencebased analysis is current to the date of publication. This analysis may be superseded by an updated publication on the same topic. Please check the Medical Advisory Secretariat Website for a list of all evidence-based analyses: Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 3

4 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS...4 LIST OF TABLES...6 ABBREVIATIONS...7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...8 OBJECTIVE OF THE EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS...8 BACKGROUND: TARGET POPULATION AND CONDITION...8 METHODS OF THE EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS...9 FINDINGS...9 CONCLUSIONS...10 EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL ISOLATION IN COMMUNITY-DWELLING SENIORS...11 OBJECTIVE OF THE EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS...11 BACKGROUND: TARGET POPULATION AND CONDITION...12 METHODS OF THE EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSES...12 Search Strategy...12 Databases Searched...13 Inclusion Criteria...13 Exclusion Criteria...13 Additional Information Sources...13 Quality of Evidence...13 FINDINGS OF EVIDENCE-BASED ANALYSIS...14 Other Systematic Reviews...14 Systematic Evidence Review by the Medical Advisory Secretariat...15 Background Study Information...15 Types of Interventions and Target Groups...17 Study Objectives, Outcome Assessment, and Follow-Up...18 Recruitment Strategies and Intervention Protocols...22 RESULTS OF IN-PERSON GROUP-BASED INTERVENTIONS...24 Support Groups...24 Community-Based Exercise Programs...25 RESULTS OF TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED INTERVENTIONS...25 Telephone Support...25 Technology-Assisted Interventions for Informal Caregivers...26 Hearing-Loss Rehabilitation...26 DISCUSSION...29 Evidence Limitations...29 Methodological Issues...30 Relevant Areas Not Addressed or Incompletely Addressed...30 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS...32 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS FOR SOCIAL ISOLATION...32 Assumptions...33 Current Expenditures in the Province of Ontario...33 CONCLUSION...34 APPENDICES...35 APPENDIX 1. SEARCH STRATEGY FOR SOCIAL ISOLATION IN COMMUNITY-DWELLING SENIORS...35 Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 4

5 APPENDIX 2. PROTOCOLS FOR INTERVENTION STUDIES FOR SOCIAL ISOLATION IN COMMUNITY-DWELLING SENIORS...38 APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF STUDY ANALYSIS, OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS, AND RESULTS...40 REFERENCES...45 Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 5

6 List of Tables Table 1: Evidence Summary for Interventions Targeting Social Isolation and Loneliness in Community- Dwelling Seniors*...15 Table 2: Overview of Quantitative Studies Involving Interventions Targeting Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors*...17 Table 3: Study Participants and Class of Interventions Targeting Social Isolation in Community- Dwelling Seniors...18 Table 4a: Study Objectives, Outcome Assessments, and Follow-Up for In-Person Group Interventions for Social Isolation...19 Table 4b: Study Objectives, Outcome Assessments, and Follow-Up for Technology-Assisted Interventions for Social Isolation...20 Table 5: Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Depression Outcome Measurements...21 Table 6a: Recruitment Strategies and Intervention Protocols for In-Person Group Interventions Targeting Social Isolation*...23 Table 6b: Recruitment Strategies and Intervention Protocols for Technology-Assisted Interventions Targeting Social Isolation*...24 Table 7: Effectiveness of Diverse Interventions for Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Depression in Heterogenous Populations of Community-Dwelling Seniors*...27 Table 8: GRADE Evidence for Interventions Targeting Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors*...28 Table 9: Cost to Implement Community-Based Exercise Programs (2008 $Cdn)*...33 Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 6

7 Abbreviations ADL CADTH GAINS HHIE HSSD ICD-10 INAHTA LTC NICE OARS RCT SD SF-36 Activities of daily living Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Gains through group involvement instrument Hearing Handicap Inventory Elderly Health System Strategy Division International Classification of Diseases-10 International Agency for Health Technology Assessment Long-term care National Institute for Clinical Excellence Older Americans Resources and Services Randomized controlled trial Standard deviation Rand Medical Outcomes Study short form Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 7

8 Executive Summary In early August 2007, the Medical Advisory Secretariat began work on the Aging in the Community project, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding healthy aging in the community. The Health System Strategy Division at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care subsequently asked the secretariat to provide an evidentiary platform for the ministry s newly released Aging at Home Strategy. After a broad literature review and consultation with experts, the secretariat identified 4 key areas that strongly predict an elderly person s transition from independent community living to a long-term care home. Evidence-based analyses have been prepared for each of these 4 areas: falls and fall-related injuries, urinary incontinence, dementia, and social isolation. For the first area, falls and fall-related injuries, an economic model is described in a separate report. Please visit the Medical Advisory Secretariat Web site, program/mas/mas_about.html, to review these titles within the Aging in the Community series. 1. Aging in the Community: Summary of Evidence-Based Analyses 2. Prevention of Falls and Fall-Related Injuries in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis 3. Behavioural Interventions for Urinary Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis 4. Caregiver- and Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia: An Evidence-Based Analysis 5. Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis 6. The Falls/Fractures Economic Model in Ontario Residents Aged 65 Years and Over (FEMOR) Objective of the Evidence-Based Analysis The objective was to systematically review interventions aimed at preventing or reducing social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors, that is, persons 65 years of age who are not living in long-term care institutions. The analyses focused on the following questions: Are interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness effective? Do these interventions improve health, well-being, and/or quality of life? Do these interventions impact on independent community living by delaying or preventing functional decline or disability? Do the interventions impact on health care utilization, such as physician visits, emergency visits, hospitalization, or admission to long-term care? Background: Target Population and Condition Social and family relationships are a core element of quality of life for seniors, and these relationships have been ranked second, next to health, as the most important area of life. Several related concepts Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 8

9 reduced social contact, being alone, isolation, and feelings of loneliness have all been associated with a reduced quality of life in older people. Social isolation and loneliness have also been associated with a number of negative outcomes such as poor health, maladaptive behaviour, and depressed mood. Higher levels of loneliness have also been associated with increased likelihood of institutionalization. Note: It is recognized that the terms senior and elderly carry a range of meanings for different audiences; this report generally uses the former, but the terms are treated here as essentially interchangeable. Methods of the Evidence-Based Analysis The scientific evidence base was evaluated through a systematic literature review. The literature searches were conducted with several computerized bibliographic databases for literature published between January 1980 and February The search was restricted to English-language reports on human studies and excluded letters, comments and editorials, and case reports. Journal articles eligible for inclusion in the review included those that reported on single, focused interventions directed towards or evaluating social isolation or loneliness; included, in whole or in part, community-dwelling seniors ( 65 years); included some quantitative outcome measure on social isolation or loneliness; and included a comparative group. Assessments of current practices were obtained through consultations with various individuals and agencies including the Ontario Community Care Access Centres and the Ontario Assistive Devices Program. An Ontario-based budget impact was also assessed for the identified effective interventions for social isolation. Findings A systematic review of the published literature focusing on interventions for social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors identified 11 quantitative studies. The studies involved European or American populations with diverse recruitment strategies, intervention objectives, and limited follow-up, with cohorts from 10 to 15 years ago involving mainly elderly women less than 75 years of age. The studies involved 2 classes of interventions: in-person group support activities and technology-assisted interventions. These were delivered to diverse targeted groups of seniors such as those with mental distress, physically inactive seniors, low-income groups, and informal caregivers. The interventions were primarily focused on behaviour-based change. Modifying factors (client attitude or preference) and process issues (targeting methods of at-risk subjects, delivery methods, and settings) influenced intervention participation and outcomes. Both classes of interventions were found to reduce social isolation and loneliness in seniors. Social support groups were found to effectively decrease social isolation for seniors on wait lists for senior apartments and those living in senior citizen apartments. Community-based exercise programs featuring health and wellness for physically inactive community-dwelling seniors also effectively reduced loneliness. Rehabilitation for mild/moderate hearing loss was effective in improving communication disabilities and reducing loneliness in seniors. Interventions evaluated for informal caregivers of seniors with dementia, however, had limited effectiveness for social isolation or loneliness. Research into interventions for social isolation in seniors has not been broadly based, relative to the diverse personal, social, health, economic, and environmentally interrelated factors potentially affecting isolation. Although rehabilitation for hearing-related disability was evaluated, the systematic review did not locate research on interventions for other common causes of aging-related disability and loneliness, such as vision loss or mobility declines. Despite recent technological advances in e-health or telehealth, controlled studies evaluating technology-assisted interventions for social isolation have examined only Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 9

10 basic technologies such as phone- or computer-mediated support groups. Conclusions Although effective interventions were identified for social isolation and loneliness in communitydwelling seniors, they were directed at specifically targeted groups and involved only a few of the many potential causes of social isolation. Little research has been directed at identifying effective interventions that influence the social isolation and other burdens imposed upon caregivers, in spite of the key role that caregivers assume in caring for seniors. The evidence on technology-assisted interventions and their effects on the social health and well-being of seniors and their caregivers is limited, but increasing demand for home health care and the need for efficiencies warrant further exploration. Interventions for social isolation in community-dwelling seniors need to be researched more broadly in order to develop effective, appropriate, and comprehensive strategies for at-risk populations. Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 10

11 Evidence-Based Analysis of Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors In early August 2007, the Medical Advisory Secretariat began work on the Aging in the Community project, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding healthy aging in the community. The Health System Strategy Division at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care subsequently asked the secretariat to provide an evidentiary platform for the ministry s newly released Aging at Home Strategy. After a broad literature review and consultation with experts, the secretariat identified 4 key areas that strongly predict an elderly person s transition from independent community living to a long-term care home. Evidence-based analyses have been prepared for each of these 4 areas: falls and fall-related injuries, urinary incontinence, dementia, and social isolation. For the first area, falls and fall-related injuries, an economic model is described in a separate report. Please visit the Medical Advisory Secretariat Web site, program/mas/mas_about.html, to review these titles within the Aging in the Community series. 1. Aging in the Community: Summary of Evidence-Based Analyses 2. Prevention of Falls and Fall-Related Injuries in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis 3. Behavioural Interventions for Urinary Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis 4. Caregiver- and Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia: An Evidence-Based Analysis 5. Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis 6. The Falls/Fractures Economic Model in Ontario Residents Aged 65 Years and Over (FEMOR) Objective of the Evidence-Based Analysis The objectives were to systematically review interventions aimed at preventing or reducing social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors, that is, persons 65 years of age who are not living in long-term care institutions. The analyses focused on the following questions: Are interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness effective? Do these interventions improve health, well-being, and/or quality of life? Do these interventions impact on independent community living by delaying or preventing functional decline or disability? Do the interventions impact on health care utilization, such as physician visits, emergency visits, hospitalization, or admission to long-term care? Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 11

12 Background: Target Population and Condition Social and family relationships are a core element of quality of life for seniors, and these relationships have been ranked second, next to health, as the most important area of life. (1;2) Several related concepts, reduced social contact, being alone, isolation, and feelings of loneliness have all been associated with a reduced quality of life in older people. (3) Social isolation refers to the objective characteristics of a situation and has been defined as the lack of meaningful and sustained communication or as having minimal contact with family or the wider community. (4) Loneliness, on the other hand, concerns the way that people perceive, experience, and evaluate lack of communication with other people. (5) The experience of loneliness generally implies an unpleasant experience or negative feelings that occur when an individual s network of social relationships is perceived to be deficient in some important way. Seniors are vulnerable to a decline in social networks and support due to a range of factors associated with life changes and loss events. These synergistic factors include events such as retirement, loss of loved ones and other relationships, declining health and increasing disability, sensory loss, and mobility restrictions. (6) Social support provides not only companionship and emotional reassurance but also practical assistance in dealing with difficulties in daily life due to illness or frailty. Social supports and networks can also influence the type and amount of care (formal and informal) that seniors need or receive. Approximately half of community-dwelling seniors (45%) received help exclusively from family and friends (informal caregivers), and over half (55%) received formal assistance, with half of these also receiving care and support from informal caregivers. (7) Living arrangements are a key aspect of one s social network and are often associated with the type of care and support needed by women. Based on the 2002 Canadian General Social Survey, elderly women were much more likely to live alone than men (43% versus 16%), and for women the probability of receiving formal care increased from 9% for those living with children to 15% for those living alone. (8) Lack or loss of caregiver support was also found to be an important risk factor for institutional admission among community-dwelling seniors. (9;10) Social isolation and loneliness have also been associated with a number of negative outcomes such as poor health and maladaptive behaviour with impacts on dietary deficits and increased utilization of services. (11) They have also been associated with negative psychological effects such as depressed mood, and decreased quality of life and life satisfaction. (12-14) Higher levels of loneliness have also been associated with an increased likelihood of hospitalization and nursing home admissions. (15;16) Methods of the Evidence-Based Analyses Search Strategy The initial literature search for systematic reviews and health technology assessments evaluating interventions for social isolation in community-dwelling seniors was performed using information from several sources: the Cochrane Library, the ECRI Institute, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) database. The Web sites of several other health technology agencies were also reviewed including the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and the United Kingdom National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 12

13 Databases Searched The search strategies with appropriate keywords and subject headings for social isolation in communitydwelling seniors are outlined in Appendix 1. The following databases were searched for literature published between January 1980 and February 2008: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and other Non- Indexed Citations, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and the INAHTA/Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Inclusion Criteria English-language reports and human studies, single-focused interventions directed to or evaluating social isolation or loneliness, community-dwelling elderly ( 65 years) subjects in whole or in part, quantitative outcome measures on social isolation or loneliness, and study design that included a control or a comparative group. Exclusion Criteria nonsystematic reviews, letters, comments, and editorials; case reports or case series involving fewer than 30 subjects; or reports involving comprehensive or integrated models of outreach or care. The search results were merged into a database using Reference Manager software, and duplicates were subsequently removed. In total, 738 citations were identified. The search results were reviewed, and articles were selected based on information provided in the title and abstract. Copies of original articles of eligible articles were obtained and reference lists were hand searched. Additional Information Sources Additional information on estimates of seniors living in the community or in LTC and disease prevalence was obtained from several national Canadian surveys including the Canadian Community Health Survey in 2000, (17) the Statistics Canadian Cycle 16 of the General Social Survey conducted in 2002, (8) and the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (18) Quality of Evidence An overall assessment of the quality of evidence was based on the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) system and referred to as the GRADE Working Group criteria. (19) Quality of the study refers to a range of criteria associated with the design, conduct, and evaluation of the study. Consistency refers to the similarity of estimates of effect across studies. If there is important unexplained inconsistency in the results, confidence in the estimate of effect for that outcome decreases. Differences in the direction of effect, the size of the differences in effect, and the significance of the differences guide the decision about whether important inconsistency exists. Directness refers to the extent to which the interventions and outcome measures are similar to those of interest. As stated by the GRADE Working Group, the following definitions were used in grading the quality of the evidence. Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 13

14 High Moderate Low Very low Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of effect. Further research is likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Any estimate of effect is very uncertain. Findings of Evidence-Based Analysis Other Systematic Reviews The literature search identified 2 systematic reviews on interventions for social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors. (20;21) Findlay et al. (20) searched the literature published in English between 1982 and They included studies that intended to achieve a health gain and recorded any health outcome measures. The authors concluded that there were few high-quality evaluations of effectiveness of interventions for social isolation. Only 6 randomized trials were identified, (22-25;25-27) and 2 of these were ineligible for the Medical Advisory Secretariat analysis as one study involved multiple interventions (26) and the other study involved an intervention in a nursing home. (27) Several qualitative conclusions were made based on the general evidence and on the characteristics of successful interventions. The degree of training of study facilitators or coordinators was cited as one factor of success. Involving older people in the planning and execution of the interventions was also an important factor in successful interventions. Interventions also had a greater likelihood of success if they involved existing community resources and aimed to build community capacity. An example cited for this was known as a gatekeeper program, in which nontraditional community referral sources were trained to identify at risk older people, who often do not come to the attention of support services. (28) The author recommended that networking among communities, governments, the private sector, and researchers be improved, in order to connect financial support with technical expertise, thus enabling more thorough investigations in this area. Cattan et al. (21) reviewed studies involving health promotion intended to remedy social isolation and loneliness among older people. Their review considered outcome studies published between 1970 and 2002 in any language; pertained to older people, with no specific age cutoff; and included the following inclusion criteria: interventions that were intended to prevent or alleviate social isolation/loneliness and which reported some form of quantitative outcome measure. Thirty quantitative studies were identified, 16 involving randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports. Of the 30 quantitative studies, 10 were eligible for the Medical Advisory Secretariat s analysis. (22-25;29-34) The remainder of the reports discussed by Catton et al. were ineligible for the current review either because the interventions consisted of a broad range of services, or because the studies did not involve mainly seniors, did not involve communitydwelling seniors, were not in English, had no control groups, or were pilot studies with fewer than 30 subjects. In general the Cattan review concluded that a few interventions for social isolation in communitydwelling seniors were effective. Group activities that included some form of educational or training input, and social activities that targeted specific groups of people were both effective. An observation was also made that intrapersonal resources such as coping, self-esteem, or psychosocial health were significant moderating factors for perceived isolation and loneliness. Interventions that resulted in improved selfesteem and locus of control, leading to perceived competence and personal control were suggested as Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 14

15 pathways to decreased loneliness. The authors concluded that there was limited generalizability of the studies because of the substantial variability in target groups, settings, circumstances, and in measurement tools and outcomes. The authors also suggested that it was as important to focus on reasons for failures as well as reasons for success in the interventions, although limited reporting on the protocols or processes made this difficult in these studies. The authors also acknowledged that the research in this area is further hampered by poorly understood complexities in the conceptual relationship between loneliness, social isolation, and living alone. Systematic Evidence Review by the Medical Advisory Secretariat The evidence review by the Medical Advisory Secretariat identified an additional quantitative report in the literature. (35) Therefore, in addition to the 10 quantitative studies identified in the previous systematic reviews, a total of 11 quantitative studies were identified involving single, focused interventions targeting social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors. Each of the studies involved a different intervention strategy and target group. Table 1 outlines the study designs for these reports. Of the 11 quantitative studies, 6 were RCTs, (23-25;30;32;35) and the balance involved other prospective controlled study designs. Two studies were a form of cluster or community-based intervention where the randomization unit was other than the individual; in one study, comparisons were between different floors of a senior citizen building (29) and in the other, across different municipal regions. (31) The 3 nonrandomized studies involved the use of various prospective control groups. (22;33;34) One of the studies, involving a phone crisis line, had been referred to as a randomized study, but allocation to the groups was systematic and was therefore reclassified as a prospective controlled study. (22) The other 2 studies, 1 involving mental health services (33) and 1 involving hearing loss rehabilitation, (34) each involved comparisons with 2 different control groups. Table 1: Evidence Summary for Interventions Targeting Social Isolation and Loneliness in Community-Dwelling Seniors* Study Design Level of Evidence Number of Eligible Studies Large RCT, systematic review of RCT 1 3, 2 Large RCT, unpublished but reported to an international 1(g) 0 scientific meeting Small RCT 2 3 Small RCT, unpublished but reported to an international 2(g) 0 scientific meeting Non-RCT with contemporaneous controls 3a 5 Non-RCT with historical controls 3b 0 Non-RCT, presented at international conference 3(g) 0 Surveillance (database or register) 4a 0 Case series (multisite) 4b 0 Case series (single site) 4c 0 Retrospective review, modeling 4d 0 Case series presented at international conference 4(g) 0 *g indicates grey literature; RCT, randomized controlled trial. For each included study, levels of evidence were assigned according to a ranking system based on a hierarchy proposed by Goodman. An additional designation g was added for preliminary reports of studies that have been presented at international scientific meetings. (36) Background Study Information Table 2 presents general information on the 11 quantitative studies involving single, focused interventions Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 15

16 targeting social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors. The reports involved studies from either American (n = 7) or European (n = 4) settings. Only 1 study (31) also received funding from industry. Most of the included studies were done on a pilot scale, and only 4 studies involved samples of more than 150 participants. (23;30-32) The mean age of the participants in the studies ranged from 64 to 77 years, and the majority of the trial participants were women. In 3 studies, (23;24;35) only women were included, and one of these involved female informal caregivers of persons with dementia. (35) Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 16

17 Table 2: Overview of Quantitative Studies Involving Interventions Targeting Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors* Author, Year Region, Country Target Group 1. Andersson 1985 (24) Stockholm, On wait lists Sweden for senior apartments 2. Arnetz and Theorell 1983 (29) 3. Hopman-Rock and Westoff 2002 (31) Stockholm, Sweden Leiden, Netherlands Residents of senior apartments Physically inactive Sample Characteristics 108 F Mean age 77 y 60 (40 F + 20 M) Mean age 77.6 y 390 (320 F + 70 M) Mean age 72.3 y 4. McAuley et al (32) Illinois, United States Physically inactive 174 (125 F + 49 M) Mean age 65.5 y 5. Caserta and Lund 1993 Utah, United States Bereaved 339 (239 F (30) M) Mean age 67.2 y 6. Rosen and Rosen 1982 (33) Georgia, United States 7. Morrow-Howell et al (22) St. Louis, Missouri, United States 8. Heller et al (23) Indiana, United States 9. Tesch-Romer et al (34) Greifswald, Germany 10. Brennan et al (25) Cleveland, Ohio, United States 11. Winter and Gitlin 2007 Philadelphia, (35) Pennsylvania, United States *F indicates female; M, male; y; years. Mental distress Mental health crisis Low income & low social support Hearing impaired Informal caregivers Informal caregivers 117 (95 F + 22 M) Median age 70 y 61 (52 F + 9 M) Mean age 77 y 291 F Mean age 74 y 148 (77 F + 71 M) Mean age 71 y 102 (68 F + 34 M) Median age 64 y 103 F Mean age 66 y Funding Source Delegation for Social Research & City of Stockholm Delegation for Social Research & City of Stockholm Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports, Pfizer, Leerdammer Cheese, & health insurance companies (Zilveren Kruis Achmea & Groene Land Achmea) National Institute on Aging National Institute on Aging Administration on Aging, Office Human Development The Retirement Research Foundation National Institute Mental Health German Research Foundation National Institute on Aging Alzheimer s Association Types of Interventions and Target Groups The reports identified with community-dwelling seniors involved different intervention strategies and target groups. The current analysis group them into studies involving interventions conducted in-person (n = 6) and studies involving interventions assisted by technology (n = 5) such as via the phone or the Internet (Table 3). One of the technology-based studies involved a direct technological intervention, namely, hearing aids. (34) All except 2 studies involved group interventions rather than individual-based interventions. (22;34) The interventions involved diverse senior target groups, such as those who are physically inactive, bereaved, living alone, in need of mental health services, hearing impaired, or on waiting lists for senior apartments. Two of the studies involved interventions targeting social isolation in seniors as informal caregivers to persons with dementia (25) or Alzheimer s disease. (35) Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 17

18 Table 3: Study Participants and Class of Interventions Targeting Social Isolation in Community- Dwelling Seniors Study Participants, Country 1. Wait list for senior apartments, Sweden 2. Residents of senior apartments, Sweden 3. Physically inactive, Netherlands 4. Physically inactive, United States 5. Bereaved, United States 6. Mental health services at senior centres, United States 7. Mental health crisis phone support, United States 8. Low income with low, perceived social support, United States 9. Hearing impaired, Germany 10. Informal caregivers of persons with Alzheimer s disease, United States 11. Female informal caregivers of persons with dementia, United States In-Person Group Activity 1 RCT (N = 108 F) 1 CIT (N = 60 F & M) 1 CIT (N = 448 F & M) 1 RCT (N = 174 F & M) 1 RCT (N = 339 F & M) 1 Cohort 2 Control Groups (N = 117 F & M) Technology-Assisted Activity 1 Cohort (systematic sampling) (N = 61 F & M) 1 RCT (N = 291 F) 1 Cohort 2 Control Groups (N = 148 F & M) 1 RCT (N = 102 F & M) 1 RCT (N = 103 F) *CIT indicates community intervention trial; F, female; M, male; RCT, randomized controlled trial. Study Objectives, Outcome Assessment, and Follow-Up The objectives of the interventions, outcomes assessed, and duration of study follow-up are listed in Table 4a for in-person interventions and in Table 4b for technology-assisted interventions. The longest follow-up period for any study was 24 months, (30) with the majority being 1 year or less. The interventions studied had diverse objectives, but all involved some form of behaviour change. In both the in-person group-based interventions and the technology-assisted interventions, the objectives tended to focus on improving self-efficacy (that is, the subject s belief that he or she can execute a behaviour required to produce a certain outcome successfully) or self-help through an increase in social activation or engagement. Efforts to increase self-efficacy and coping were directed at different target groups: those in bereavement, those in need of mental health services, or those not coping in the community. The methods to increase self-efficacy were varied, using focus groups to provide support and education and a social forum in which to discuss health topics. Two studies involving group-based exercise interventions evaluated the indirect or additional effects of group exercise activity on social isolation. (31;32) The technology-assisted interventions used the Internet or telephone conferencing systems to support and engage seniors in the community. The lack of in-person contact for these interventions was viewed by the investigators as an advantage for 2 groups of seniors: informal caregivers of persons with dementia, because of their constrained schedules and limited availability, and seniors with a mental health crisis, because of their concern for anonymity. Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 18

19 Two intervention studies for informal caregivers included one led by a nurse (25) and the other by a social worker. (35) Although both studies examined how caregiver burden and social isolation affected caregivers, each involved slightly different objectives. The nurse-led intervention, involving a Web-based computer network support system, was intended to improve decision-making as well as decrease social isolation and burden for the caregiver. The social worker led telephone-based support group was intended mainly to increase the social support network and decrease burden for caregivers. Although the study objectives were generally focused on social isolation or loneliness and involved measures of social isolation or loneliness, they also evaluated a number of other outcome assessments (Tables 4a, 4b). The diverse range of psychosocial health and resource outcome measures evaluated in the studies included competency, coping, self-esteem, morale, and life satisfaction. Depression was assessed in 7 studies (22;23;29;30;34) either by the Geriatric Depression Scale (37) or the Center Epidemiologic Studies in Depression Scale. (38) A health-related quality of life outcome measure evaluated by the Rand Medical Outcomes Study short form (SF-36) (39) was reported in one study, (31) and the impact of the intervention on disability as measured by activities of daily living (ADL) (40) was measured in another study. (23) The interventions involving informal caregivers assessed additional outcome measures of caregiver burden and decision making. (25;35) None of the studies evaluated the impact of interventions on health care utilization, such as physician visits, emergency visits, hospitalization, or admission to LTC. Table 4a: Study Objectives, Outcome Assessments, and Follow-Up for In-Person Group Interventions for Social Isolation Intervention Study Objective Outcome Assessment Domains* 1. Focus groups led by Increase social network in seniors Social integration, social contacts, social worker or home on wait list for senior citizen alienation, psychological helper apartments resources, health changes 2. Staff-led senior citizen Social activation in residents of Mental, physical well-being, social support groups senior citizen apartments interaction, behaviour 3. Peer- and professional-led exercise and education program 4. Trained exercise specialist 5. Peer and professionalled self-help support groups 6. Social worker led self-help support groups Increase physical activity in inactive community-dwelling seniors Evaluate the impact of different modes of exercise on components of subjective well-being Increase self-efficacy in bereaved persons Increase self-efficacy in seniors needing mental health services *Details of the domain assessments are outlined in Table 1 of Appendix 3. General health, physical performance, health-related knowledge Happiness, satisfaction with life, loneliness Self-esteem, life satisfaction, competency Follow-Up (months) Social isolation, activity, morale Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 19

20 Table 4b: Study Objectives, Outcome Assessments, and Follow-Up for Technology-Assisted Interventions for Social Isolation Intervention Study Objective Outcome Assessment Domains* Follow-Up (months) 7. Social worker crisis phone line Increase self-efficacy in seniors with mental health crisis Depressive symptoms, socialization, unmet needs, independence Friendly interviewer phone visits followed by telephone friendship dyads Increase friendships in community-dwelling lowincome women with low perceived social support 9. Aural rehabilitation Correct functional deficit in patients referred by physician for hearing assessment 10. Nurse-moderated computer link 11. Social worker led telephone-based support group Increase self-efficacy in informal caregivers of persons with Alzheimer s disease Increase social support network in female informal care givers of persons with dementia *Details of the domain assessments are outlined in Table 2 of Appendix 3. Perceived social support, morale, depression, loneliness, physical health, activities daily living, network embeddedness Hearing aid handicap, social activities, social relations, psychosomatic well-being, cognition Decision making, social isolation, caregiver burden, depression Gains, depression, caregiver burden 6 Table 5 presents the detailed outcome measurements employed for social isolation, loneliness, and depression. Social isolation was measured by various assessment indices of social contact or social embeddedness ranging from frequency counts of social interactions to formal measurement instruments. The formal instruments designed for social isolation included Perceived Social Support Scale for Friends and for Family (41), Instrumental and Expressive Social Support (42), Network Embeddedness Scale, (43) and the Social Provisions Scale. (44) Loneliness was evaluated either as a 1-item response to frequency of loneliness or measured by specifically designed instruments such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale. (45) No distinctions were made between emotional loneliness and social loneliness in the studies, and none employed the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, (46) which was specifically designed for use in elderly populations. Measures of social isolation and loneliness were also extracted from various generic global health or multidimensional functional assessment tools such as the Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) instrument (47) and the SF-36. (39) The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, (48) another multidimensional assessment tool, was applied for a specific population, the hearing-impaired. For the 2 studies involving informal caregivers of persons with Alzheimer s disease or dementia, social support or isolation were estimated with different measurement instruments, those for caregiver burden and those for gains through group involvement. Two different measures of caregiver burden were employed in the studies, the Zarit Burden Scale (49) and the Impact of Caregiving Scale (50), each of which have subdomains that include the impact of caregiver burden on emotions, social relations, family relations, and social support. Gains were measured using the gains through group involvement instrument (GAINS), a 6-item scale adapted from a full instrument evaluating gains. (51) The gains perceived by caregivers included those in making new friendships, knowing what to do or how to handle loneliness, stress, or resource issues in the past few months. Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 20

21 Table 5: Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Depression Outcome Measurements 1. Self-help programs for seniors on wait list for senior apartments 2. Residents of senior apartments 3 Exercise programs in physically inactive 4. Exercise programs in physically inactive 5. Group support program for bereaved 6. Mental health services at senior centres 7. Mental health crisis phone line 8. Phone friendships for low income persons with low perceived social support Mental Health & Well Being Social Isolation Loneliness Depression Social contacts UCLA Loneliness Scale NM Social activity levels Rand Medical Outcomes Study Short Form SF-36 Social Provisions Scale (SPS) NM 1 item (often, sometimes, rarely, never lonely) 1 item (often, sometimes, rarely, NM never lonely) UCLA Loneliness Scale NM NM Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG) Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) Social activity Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) Frequency social contacts and satisfaction Perceived social support friends (PSS-FR) and family (PSS-FA) Network embeddedness 9. Hearing impaired Hearing handicap Inventory Elderly (HHIE) German Social Support Scale 10. Support for informal caregivers of persons with Alzheimer s disease 11. Support for female informal caregivers of persons with dementia Instrumental and Expressive Social Support (IESS) Impact of Caregiving Scale Caregiver Burden Scale Gains through Group Involvement Scale (GAINS) 1 item (always, frequently, seldom, never lonely) 1 item (always, frequently, seldom, never lonely) *NM indicates not measured; UCLA, the University of California, Los Angeles. NM NM Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) 7-item loneliness scale Center Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) UCLA Loneliness Scale Center Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) NM Center Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) NM Center Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 21

22 Recruitment Strategies and Intervention Protocols The recruitment strategies and protocols for the in-person group interventions and for the technology-assisted interventions are outlined in Tables 6a and 6b, respectively. Appendix 2 details the intervention protocols. Eligible subjects were variably defined by age groups in the studies (51 89, 52 91, 60 80, 65, and 75+ years). Three studies reported sampling frames involving agency lists: seniors on waiting lists for senior residences, (24) municipal lists, (31) and municipal household listings. (23) The other studies reported diverse recruitment strategies for senior volunteers in various settings and with different living arrangements. Four studies involved subjects referred by a physician, (22;29;33;34) and the others involved various communication and advertising strategies through the media and local community outlets. Participants were recruited from various settings. Only 1 study reported targeting seniors living alone in the community, and that involved elderly women who were already on a waiting list for senior citizen apartments. (24) One study involved residents of congregate-living senior citizen apartments. (29) Three studies involved interventions with seniors living in the community but in various states of emotional distress: in bereavement, (30) needing mental health services, (33) and in mental health crisis. (22) Two studies, 1 from the Netherlands (31) and 1 from the United States (32), evaluated exercise interventions with inactive community-dwelling seniors. One study (23) sought to recruit a representative group of the general elderly population at risk for social isolation and included seniors living in the community with low income and low perceived social support, who were randomly selected from residences of low-income housing tracts. That study, however, only involved women. Social Isolation Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2008;8(5) 22